Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on January 31, 2008, 08:54:01 PM
-
Just watching this.
Two things.
One confirmed. One new
1 these two are almost a mirror image of one another.
Not sure if it was a debate or an agree fest.
2-
I am now convinced that Hillary has the HOTS for Obama.
She wants to bed him. she wants to bed him BAD
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
2-
I am now convinced that Hillary has the HOTS for Obama.
She wants to bed him. she wants to bed him BAD
Precicely why Hillary shouldn't get the nomination.. Not because she apparently has the hots for Obama, but because she will be a target without boundries..
-
I know there is no way some of you will believe me... I will never vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
I wholly think she is full of it now.
-
On a serious note...I watched...and was very intent on watching with an open mind.
On alot of issues they are very close. Her rep. from reading and hearing differant things about her as first lady tends to make me shy away from ever wanting her in the White House. Not to mention I don't agree with lots of things they didn't even bring up in the debate. Issues that the Dems. push.
However , with that said.....I like Obama. He seems concise and straight forward in his answers. He also doesn't shy away from what he stands for at all even when it isn't the popular way to go.
McCain is a typical Washington insider and will not do anything IMO to get this country on the track I personally would like to see. I think he will say what ever it takes to get elected. He isn't truthful IMO.
Although I don't agree with MOST of the democrats side and thier stances on subjects I care about , IF the following happens....It will seriously make me think even harder about my vote....
Hillary vs. McCain = no vote
McCain vs. Obama = possibly Obama
Rommney or Huckabee vs. either Dem. = Rommney or Huckabee
Maybe it's just I know I'll get screwed one way...and the other would be a hope not to get screwed and then hopes dashed when I do get screwed.
Who knows.....Obama does seem appealing and I can understand why the left see's him with the hope they do.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
On a serious note...I watched...and was very intent on watching with an open mind.
I was being serious.
If you get a chance look at it again and look at the way she keeps looking at him.
-
I liked how when Obama was asked if Hillary would be his running mate, he quickly changed the subject to discussing his cabinet members.
-
for the dems to gain the Whitehouse, one will be potus and the other the veep .. doesn't matter which is which
that gives them the majority of the women, the majority of the black, the majority of the immigrant/Hispanic and all of the homo vote .. added together, that will be enough to beat McCain or Mitt
if they do, let's hope they don't irreversibly screw up the country in the next four years .. I'm not so sure they won't
-
Don't worry Eagler, it's all uphill from where GW left it.
-
It was also pretty clear that Hillary won the debate on the substantive issues. Obama did good, but he needs to do much better to beat Hillary on Super Tuesday. I'm predicting a Hillary-Obama ticket. If Obama wins the nomination Hillary will probably not accept the veep job. Either way the Dems will win in November and all will be set right with the world.
-
just curious MT.. what do you like about democrats?
lazs
-
Mainly health care reform, fiscal responsibility, social assistance when needed, basing the effort against terrorists on reality.
-
he is mad that bush didn't wink at him :rolleyes:
-
Mark my words you may think we are screwed now under Bush, but if Billery or Osamabama get in we are SCREWED three ways from Sunday.
-
so... mt.. what you like is taking money spent on defense and then adding even more taxes onto that and using it for socialism?
"Health care reform" is a little nebulous.. I am for health care reform too.. I want to reform it by getting government out of it. I assume you want to reform it by using tax money to pay for more of it.., all run by the government?
lazs
-
Mainly health care reform, fiscal responsibility, social assistance when needed, basing the effort against terrorists on reality.
====
All great reasons to vote McCain :D
-
I don't mean to get on anyone's bandwagon, but Ron Paul does "health care reform, fiscal responsibility, social assistance when needed, basing the effort against terrorists on reality" better than any Democrat.
And McCain ought to be disqualified on the spot for wanting amnesty for illegals, rather than kicking those freeloaders out, and letting proper immigrants in.
-
Originally posted by moot
I don't mean to get on anyone's bandwagon, but Ron Paul does "health care reform, fiscal responsibility, social assistance when needed, basing the effort against terrorists on reality" better than any Democrat.
True, and if I thought he had a snow balls chance in.......well I would vote for him.
-
I almost think the same... I'd wait for the actual voting day to make my decision though. So far at least one of the supposed favorites has dropped out.
-
I would hold my nose and vote for mc cain. He is only half democrat.. billary and osamabama are pure-dee 100% socialist democrat.
The democrats want to "help" the worthless and illegal in order to buy their vote. The republicans want to help the rich to get contributions..
the middle class pays for it all. Less government is the only real way.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if they do, let's hope they don't irreversibly screw up the country in the next four years ..
Can it be any more screwed up? :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The democrats want to "help" the worthless and illegal in order to buy their vote. The republicans want to help the rich to get contributions..
the middle class pays for it all. Less government is the only real way.
lazs
Wow, I completely agree with Lazs, now thats something new!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so... mt.. what you like is taking money spent on defense and then adding even more taxes onto that and using it for socialism?
"Health care reform" is a little nebulous.. I am for health care reform too.. I want to reform it by getting government out of it. I assume you want to reform it by using tax money to pay for more of it.., all run by the government?
lazs
I thought I was pretty clear. No need to try and reword it so you might have a point.
Fiscal responsibility = pay as you go. (the dem congress has already implemented this and Clinton balanced the budget when he was in office.)
Health care reform - I'm in favor of a government run system that pays for everything, and I am willing to pay taxes to fund it. Consider how much you or your employer pays now, won't be much different.
The war on terror - Afghanistan was a good move. Iraq was stupid. We could have sunk 1/10th the resources into a search and destroy mission and routed Al Quieda without creating new terror cells in Iraq. That is the reality.
Assistance - should be limited and focused on removing people from the welfare roles.
-
Since 1989, only two famillies ruled USA. I will not vote for Hillary just to brake the monopolistic cycle.
I'll not vote for Obama because he is a muslim, and will be sworn in on the Koran.
Now THAT is some deep political analisys.:p
-
Gotta go along with laz on this (as usual). I will hold my nose and vote for johnny mcclain. I have seldom come across a person that I despise as much as billary. She wears her elitism on her sleeve. Whenever I hear that ridiculous cackle I am compelled to force a red-hot poker through my eye. God help us. It's strange times we live in when a patriot like Ron Paul in considered a "wacko..."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It was also pretty clear that Hillary won the debate on the substantive issues. Obama did good, but he needs to do much better to beat Hillary on Super Tuesday. I'm predicting a Hillary-Obama ticket. If Obama wins the nomination Hillary will probably not accept the veep job. Either way the Dems will win in November and all will be set right with the world.
I wouldn't be surprised if either one of them tapped Edwards for VP.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Gotta go along with laz on this (as usual). I will hold my nose and vote for johnny mcclain. I have seldom come across a person that I despise as much as billary. She wears her elitism on her sleeve. Whenever I hear that ridiculous cackle I am compelled to force a red-hot poker through my eye. God help us. It's strange times we live in when a patriot like Ron Paul in considered a "wacko..."
I won't vote for McCain, ever. If McCain wins the nomination, I'm writing in Ron Paul, even if that means a democrat would win.
-
I noticed today that Anne Coulter finds McCain so distasteful that she'll endorse Clinton if it comes down to those two.
Not that her opinion is worth spit....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would hold my nose and vote for mc cain. He is only half democrat.. billary and osamabama are pure-dee 100% socialist democrat.
The democrats want to "help" the worthless and illegal in order to buy their vote. The republicans want to help the rich to get contributions..
the middle class pays for it all. Less government is the only real way.
lazs
I think you should start a new political party. The naming rights are up to you.:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Can it be any more screwed up? :aok
wait and see
-
Not that her opinion is worth spit....
====
She gets paid for her opinion. do you :eek:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
She gets paid for her opinion. do you :eek:
\
Just as much as you.
Got an opinion?
-
They completely glossed over the illegals...and drivers license...what a bunch scum bags..I hope they all burn in hell..typical pork sucking gov types..both of them
Btw..MT has your life been so miserable the last 8 years?...I doubt it..I bet your actually doing better then you were 8 years ago..
and You democrat say Slick willy didn't spend much..Great Surplus!!!...Do you think The middle east planned all this hatred and 9-11 attacks just during Bushs first few months?...Clueless Dolts If you believe that. Clinton Continued to slash military...and you guys claim Great Leader!!!....
-
Got an opinion?
====
yes. i have an opinion in damned near every subject worth discussing. Coulter for instance, I know it sounds almost nasty but I'd hit it. Her politcs arent impressive at all, but I do like the way she goes after godless liberals.....its just funny to watch/listen to (even though I might be godless.....sometimes).
-
What's astounding is how some think there's a big difference between the parties. We still have out of control spending regardless of the party 'in power'.
I'm voting for Ron Paul regardless of who the front runners are (I'm assuming that Paul won't be the Republican nominee).
For those of you that think voting for Paul is a waste if you think he's the best candidate but he won't win anyway, shame on you (self fulfilling prophecy).
Things will stay the same because of that type of thinking.
We will get what we deserve.
-
I have two words for any conservative minded person who might be considering voting for a third party or even writing in their favorite candidate.
ross perot
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
They completely glossed over the illegals...and drivers license...what a bunch scum bags..I hope they all burn in hell..typical pork sucking gov types..both of them
[/b] Sorry Big not to be up on what your policy wish-list is. Do you have 3 or 4 do's and don'ts you'd love to see if you were King?
Originally posted by GiGBMAW
Btw..MT has your life been so miserable the last 8 years?...I doubt it..I bet your actually doing better then you were 8 years ago.
[/b] I understand the question. Besides financial well-being, have you a couple other criteria for deciding who deserves praise and censure?
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
and You democrat say Slick willy didn't spend much..Great Surplus!!!...Do you think The middle east planned all this hatred and 9-11 attacks just during Bushs first few months?...Clueless Dolts If you believe that. Clinton Continued to slash military...and you guys claim Great Leader!!!....
Perfect point. Animosity and planning predate Bush. Let's say the military budget had not been slashed. Are you thinking the added money would have resulted in intelligence that would have thwarted 9/11? Lastly, what would have been the result, do you guess, of a non-slashed military budget upon hatred and planning of the bad guys?
-
As an outside observer (republican)
My thoughts on Obama and Hillary are that she will say anything she has too in order to get your vote!
I think that Obama will tell you more about what he thinks than what you want too hear,(this is a good thing!)
at least untill he gets the nomination, and i think he might just get it!
then all H E double hickey sticks are going to rain down on him for his past lack of patriotism, TRUE or NOT!
The best possible race (in my opinion) would be Obama against McCain,
as you would have new ideas and fresh blood against an older statesman with time in congress and good ideas on how to get things done!
With Mccain your safe for another 4 too 8 years and you get too see what Obama does with the next part of his political career, then if he is as good as his suporters think, then let him try again! he is a young man with plenty of time to be president later in life!
Mccain was not my first choice but i will vote for him if he gets the nomination, the other choice is just not an option for me!
Maybe if Bill Richardson would have made it then i could vote for him as a dem. or Lieberman,
but not Hillary, for the simple fact she has full hate and discontent for the armed forces, and treats the people around her like second class citizens!
I also am not ready to put Obama into power mainly because of his lack of experiance but also because of his background, (still seems to be a bit of a mystery that will probably be sorted out in his near future)
but who knows in 4 too 8 years he will have had time too prove that the best interest's of THIS country are what he has at the top of his list!
-
it wasn't just the military budget that was cut, the intelligence budget was also cut and the clinton administration decided that is was not nice to use informants that were "bad guys", so they got rid of the "bad guy" informants and crippled the intelligence gathering capability of our govt, it is possible that without the cuts the 9-11 attack might have been stopped.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Mainly health care reform, fiscal responsibility.
Now those two sentances should never be places on the same line together.
I heard both talking about this last night.
My main question is "How ya gonna pay for it."
Just letting the bush tax cuts expire for those making more then 200K aint gonna do it by itself.
And they are talking about tax breaks. and eliminating income tax for a portion of the population.
Then they were talking about other social programs as well. the names of which escape me at the moment.
Again. These are going to cost money.
If they can do it. great. But where's the money going ot come from?
With health care services what your going ot end up with is a national HMO.
Which means the insurance companies are goingot dictate what and how much they are willing to pay for. just as they do now.
Problem with that is for example. you need an operation. And after that operation typically to be safe the doctors and the hospital would like you to remain under superviced care for lets say 3 days..
But the insurance cos are nly willing ot pay X amount
so you know what happens. you get the surgery. and then the hospital discharges you in 1 or 2 days because what the insurance companies wont pay enough to cover the costs for the care you need and the hospitals cant afford to keep you there for free..
And thats how I know how it works. I know someone in the finance Dept at a hosp[ital and My wife see's it every day working at one.
now multiply this over millions of people.
Its all gonna cost. doctors cant and wont work for free, and hospitals cant afford to stay open if they arent going to get paid what they need to operate.
The idea is a great one. great thought.
It just isnt goiing to work without bankrupting us all
And thats not even includng the other social programs they are goingot want to pass.
that are also going to cost money
-
Originally posted by acfireguy26
True, and if I thought he had a snow balls chance in.......well I would vote for him.
Yanno I bet if everyone voted for him that felt that they would vote for him if he had a chance.
I bet he'd win.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would hold my nose and vote for mc cain. He is only half democrat.. billary and osamabama are pure-dee 100% socialist democrat.
The democrats want to "help" the worthless and illegal in order to buy their vote. The republicans want to help the rich to get contributions..
the middle class pays for it all. Less government is the only real way.
lazs
so your voting for Paul?
Thought you said at the beginning of your post that you'd vote for McCain?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Clinton balanced the budget when he was in officeAssistance - should be limited and focused on removing people from the welfare roles.
Yes but didnt clinton do it by being able to reach across the isle and work with a Rep congress?
Hillary shows no signs whatsoever of being willing to reach across the isle on anything.
Thats the part about her that disturbs me most.
If you watched last nights debate. Whats she said the most was how she didnt like the Republicans. It was almost as if she were seething with hate.
With her attitude she is going to ailientate a huge segment of the population and what we are going to end up with is yet another devisive president.
Obama is IMO the lessor of two Evils.
Personally I hope he wins the nomination so I dont feel like Im being blackmailed into having to vote Republican again.
One line of pure BS hillary stated last night was about the tax cuts when she said taxes would "go back to their pre cut levels. and I remember people were doing pretty good at that tax rate."
VERY poor memory Hillary.
Some of us actually remember recent history.
At the time those tax cuts went into effect we were in a recession. Which started during your husbands presidency.
And people were NOT doing so well at that time.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
What's astounding is how some think there's a big difference between the parties. We still have out of control spending regardless of the party 'in power'.
I'm voting for Ron Paul regardless of who the front runners are (I'm assuming that Paul won't be the Republican nominee).
For those of you that think voting for Paul is a waste if you think he's the best candidate but he won't win anyway, shame on you (self fulfilling prophecy).
Things will stay the same because of that type of thinking.
We will get what we deserve.
Exactly. Each side has become corrosive to the country as a whole.
By voting for either party only . your just contributing to the corrosion like water on rust
-
Originally posted by sluggish
I have two words for any conservative minded person who might be considering voting for a third party or even writing in their favorite candidate.
ross perot
From what I've read, Ross Perot stole more votes from the democrats, then he did from the republicans.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
From what I've read, Ross Perot stole more votes from the democrats, then he did from the republicans.
Well, I'll tell you... I voted for him as well as A LOT of my friends at the time. If he hadn't been there I, as well as many people that I know, definately would have voted for Bush. There is already talk of Huckabee intentionally sticking in the race (even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance) just to draw vote away from Romney so that johnny mcclain will get the nomination. Johnny has probably offered him a juicy cabinet position to stick around...
-
Originally posted by john9001
without the cuts the 9-11 attack might have been stopped.
It's statements like these that reassure me that people who get too one-sided for either political party end up getting completely lost in their own BS!:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Well, I'll tell you... I voted for him as well as A LOT of my friends at the time. If he hadn't been there I, as well as many people that I know, definately would have voted for Bush. There is already talk of Huckabee intentionally sticking in the race (even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance) just to draw vote away from Romney so that johnny mcclain will get the nomination. Johnny has probably offered him a juicy cabinet position to stick around...
I find it hard to believe that any republican would want Romney the moron in the white house!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I find it hard to believe that any republican would want Romney the moron in the white house!
I should rather vote for mccain? I would love to have the ability to vote for Ron Paul in a general election. That is a pipe dream at best. The next best man for the job is Mitt.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Well, I'll tell you... I voted for him as well as A LOT of my friends at the time.
I voted for him.
Had I not I would have had to do as I did the following election.
Abstained out of disgust
I'll probably vote for RP this time. because if I dont I may end up doing the same thing.
I'd vote for a democrate or Rep ifthey put someone up worth voting for.
from what I can see. Neither is
So my vote steals a potential vote from either side.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
I have two words for any conservative minded person who might be considering voting for a third party or even writing in their favorite candidate.
ross perot
In retrospect, you think we'd be better off now had Ross Perot won?
He spoke of putting the best people in the top positions. He also spoke of a big sucking sound of companies moving south because of NAFTA.
Would we have had better people in key intelligence positions as well?
Would 9/11 have happened?
-
Originally posted by sluggish
I should rather vote for mccain? I would love to have the ability to vote for Ron Paul in a general election. That is a pipe dream at best. The next best man for the job is Mitt.
It sucks when every candidate on both sides just does not add up to a worthy vote!
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
In retrospect, you think we'd be better off now had Ross Perot won?
He spoke of putting the best people in the top positions. He also spoke of a big sucking sound of companies moving south because of NAFTA.
Would we have had better people in key intelligence positions as well?
Would 9/11 have happened?
I do believe we would have been better of with perot but he didn't win. Instead he sucked enough votes from bush for clinton to win.
-
Originally posted by moot
I don't mean to get on anyone's bandwagon, but Ron Paul does "health care reform, fiscal responsibility, social assistance when needed, basing the effort against terrorists on reality" better than any Democrat.
And McCain ought to be disqualified on the spot for wanting amnesty for illegals, rather than kicking those freeloaders out, and letting proper immigrants in.
Ron who?? :huh
-
Originally posted by sluggish
I do believe we would have been better of with perot but he didn't win. Instead he sucked enough votes from bush for clinton to win.
And yet here we are today with most still voting for the less of two evils instead of the best candidate. We reap what we sow, we get what we deserve.
I'm voting my conscience, results be damned. Someday maybe we end up electing the best one through hope rather than the better of two evils due to fear.
Wasted vote? I think not.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
And yet here we are today with most still voting for the less of two evils instead of the best candidate. We reap what we sow, we get what we deserve.
I'm voting my conscience, results be damned. Someday maybe we end up electing the best one through hope rather than the better of two evils due to fear.
Wasted vote? I think not.
You would vote your conscience and write in a candidate even if you knew that your guy had no chance of winning and the fact that if enough people did as you did all that would be accomplished would be that enough votes would be sucked from the lesser of two evils so that the greater of two evils wins the election?
What we need is a strong, viable third party. As long as this is a two ring circus the only thing write-in candidates will do is screw up the consensus of the people.
-
You've got it backwards. The better parties/candidates aren't getting in because people aren't voting for them. It's because of lesser-of-two-evils voting patterns that "evils" get in.
Consistently favoring worse traits rather than better traits - no matter if it's the better of the worse traits that you favor - will consistently make things worse, not better.
Nothing should come before what's right and true... Complacency is no excuse.
-
As long as this is a two ring circus the only thing write-in candidates will do is screw up the consensus of the people.
Then it's not really the consensus of the people, is it? The parties both count on at the very least lesser of two evil voting. The way they have branded and platformed the party planks, they know they can count on your fears to support a candidate they like but that might be marginal in regards to what you like. Want reform in Washington -- don't expect to get it from any mainstream candidate. That's not why they were picked and promoted at the exclusion of better men and women.
The only way to get a viable third party, or to force change and reform in the existing parties is to have the courage of conviction and not play the game they expect you to play.
Charon
-
Originally posted by moot
You've got it backwards. The better parties/candidates aren't getting in because people aren't voting for them. It's because of lesser-of-two-evils voting patterns that "evils" get in.
Consistently favoring worse traits rather than better traits - no matter if it's the better of the worse traits that you favor - will consistently make things worse, not better.
If more Americans were thinking people I'd agree with you. Unfortunately most Americans will vote for the person with the shinyest commercials and the person who promises them more "stuff." In this climate the person most qualified for the job but without the big party backing will only accomplish pulling enough concience votes to allow the person least qualified to win. We are witnessing this very thing in the repub primaries right now with Ron Paul drawing just enough attention away from Romney to allow mccain to win. In the general election, if enough people write in Paul, he could draw enough votes away from the repub nom to allow the dem nom to win, just like in 1992.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-qualities
-
That ain't right Sluggish... Look at how far voting for the lesser of two evils has lead.
-
moot... look where protest voting has lead is a better way to put it.
Imagine if everyone would have voted against LBJ for instance... everyone who voted independent. LBJ getting in was the worst thing that has happened to the country. No republican could have made it so bad.. anyone but LBJ would have been a great thing.
I believe that osamabama or billary will be the same as letting in another LBJ... maybe worse. we are strained to the limit now on socialism.. heap one more biggie like socialized medicine on the heap and it's all over...
serfdom for all.. the poor and the young see nothing wrong with that tho... after all.. the middle class is "rich" the real rich don't care... the more serfs.. the more rich they are. The democrat politicians don't care.. the more serfs with no power the better.. stalin never got cold or hungry or went without mansions or hookers or whatever he wanted..
lazs
-
Laz.
Honestly. the more I hear you talk. the more Im convinced that if Satan himself were running for the Republicans. And Christ for the Democrats.
You would still push the republican vote as being the lessor of two evils.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Laz.
Honestly. the more I hear you talk. the more Im convinced that if Satan himself were running for the Republicans. And Christ for the Democrats.
You would still push the republican vote as being the lessor of two evils.
Thast's just silly. Everybody knows that Christ would run as an independant and get crucified in the general election.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Since 1989, only two famillies ruled USA. I will not vote for Hillary just to brake the monopolistic cycle.
I'll not vote for Obama because he is a muslim, and will be sworn in on the Koran.
Now THAT is some deep political analisys.:p
Wow. And you're wrong. He is Christian.
.... and you're a moron for even making a statement like that.
-
I'm not a moron ... I'm from the internet ...
-
dred.. make some sense.
Which time in the last 30 years has the republican NOT been the lesser of two evils? I bet if you take a test and it is multiple choice..and.. all the correct answers are "b".. you would write in some "c" ones just because you can't believe all the answers are "b".
The clash came at FDR.. he was the first real evil democrat.. the first anti american.. but.. LBJ was the first modern democrat.. all are modeled on him.. with a heavy dose of estrogen added lately to make it even worse.
For those of you who think that there is no difference between candidates I invite... no... dare.. you to look at the judges appointed by both democrats and republicans (republicans have made a few mistakes but..) and.. look at all the gun laws and votes.
I think our courts are a very big deal. I think gun laws are a very big deal..
I think arresting employers of illegals is a very big deal... I think not building refineries or nuke plants or drilling for oil in Alaska or off the coast is a very big deal..
How is $150 a month sewer bill or $6 a gallon gas gonna make you better off?
How is a health care system run like social security gonna help us? another democrat ponzie scheme.
lazs
-
lazs, our current system is the Ponzi scheme. Old Americans spend every dollar they have and then go into back breaking debt in their golden years unless they were fortunate enough to earn enough for a retirement plan, or even less likely worked for a company that provides a retirement plan. How much different would life be if we didn't sweat sickness as a road to bankruptcy?
-
mt..you are correct.. the democrats have made sure that we have no real retirement plan and that even the ponzie scheme they have given us will be bankrupt.. cheating all those who are young and paying into it now. I expect to get very little of the money I put into it...
I will be punished for having the foresight to have a better retirement plan.. they will take the money I have put in and give it to someone who never put a dime into the system.
Just like they will take any money I put into health care and give it to someone who never put a dime into it.
for what most people spend on cable tv they could get health insurance that carried a high deductible.. about like on their car.
If your transmission goes out.. you pay the 3 grand and get it fixed.. you don't go into a rage about the insurance company and demand that the government "fix" car insurance so that breakdowns don't put you in the poorhouse.
It is not that people can't afford health care so much as that they don't think it important enough to give up their cell phone or cable tv or internet over. and...if it costs them anything.. they somehow feel cheated..
Why do you feel it is ok for me to pay for someone elses health care?
lazs
-
3k is nothing when you're talking about health care costs, but you know that already. A simple surgury will cost you your house, or the equivalent. You can rail about cell phones and TV all you want, but there are plenty of people out there who will be destitute due to health care costs that don't fall into your little pigeon hole. Why are we the ONLY western country that does not provide health care for our people?
-
you missed the point.. 3k is the deductible. If you have something major done or.. just year to year.. you pay the first 3k.. like the deductible on your car insurance.
Why are we the only western country to not provide health care? why are we different than your-0-peeans at all is your real question... There are lots of areas that we differ from your-0-peeans.. I happen to like it that way.
We have lots of things that are different.. more home ownership for instance.. more guns more freedom.. Why should I be forced to pay for other peoples health care?
And of course.. that is what will come up.. the people you weep for.. the poor slobs who are awash in medical bills will still exist.. they will be blamed for the failed ponzie health scheme and laws will have to be passed to ban their unhealthy life style. fatty laws... that kind of thing.
your-0-peean lifestyle and ways are not a perfect fit for us.. that is what the democrats and socialists fail to see... we are far too individualist and stubborn and driven even at this point. your-0-peeans love their governments and trust them completely.. they have been slaughtered by same over history.. we don't.. We are Americans with a heritage of individual rights and fierce independence.
Sociaized medicine is a step in the wrong direction.
There is room for health care reform but not socialized medicine.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.. with a heavy dose of estrogen added lately to make it even worse.
ain't that the truth
I think they model their backbone for security and strength after this "warrior":
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Joseph_Kennedy.jpg)
if it were up this loser ww2 gb/europe would have turned out as they want Iraq to.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I'm not a moron ... I'm from the internet ...
Yeah, get it right!
That makes us all retarded! :D
-
:rofl
-
Huckabee could effect Super Tuesday (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee)
This is exactly what I was talking about. I bet there has been a back-room deal struck.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
[Bimplemented this and Clinton balanced the budget when he was in office.)
[/B]
History is so inconvenient.
AS I pointed out in another thread:
During Bill Clinton's Presidency there was an overall steady downward trend in spending for both terms considering Bush 1's spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first 2 years of Clinton's first term. Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency. So the last 75% of those declining years the Congress was totally under Republican control.
You might remember that the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican Contract with America campaign.
The historical fact is that a Republican Congress balanced the budget and Clinton was forced to go along with it. No way he could have not accepted a balanced budget sent to him by both houses of Congress.
Sorry for injecting a little reality into that stroll down memory lane.
-
Clinton Unveils His Balanced Budget (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/02/budget/)
How can you continue to conveniently forget that it is the President who submits the budget, and it is congress who votes on it. Now if you can prove that the balanced budget submitted by Clinton was cut by congress... you might have something.
-
<>
defense and transportation cuts, is that why our troops don't have armor and the bridges are falling down?